Physiognomy of Sexuality

Gender biology needs liberate biology from carno-phallogocentrism.

Most humans beyond a certain age of psychological development think s/he knows how to tell whether someone is sexually attractive but what is it that we actually do, how do we do it and what does it mean? We thus typically take this process of selection and deselection for granted without investigating the whys and hows.

As this a hermeneutic process that is epistemological in nature in intuitively performing applied physiognomy need we understand what this means from a transdisciplinary perspective of gender biology.

What does it mean when we say that someone is hot, attractive, sexy, cute etc? This is performative of course in being subjective (i.e. idiosyncratic of a psychometrically unique person) in terms of individual subjectivity in applied physiognomy. It is also socially constructed and so studying historical pornographic images and historical photographs generally from different decades clearly shows that general social ideals in the physiognomy of attraction changes in time and space as aesthetic ideals vary and change greatly in different social, cultural and temporal contexts. There is also a biological aspect of cognition in terms of how the two brains work in that varying socially constructed aesthetic ideals are all based on attraction to perceived anatomical asymmetry.

Yet there are also epistemological and psychological aspects that we need to closely examine and deconstruct indeed. The process of determining whether someone is “attractive” is typically intuitive yet must involve a rather complex and multifaceted psychological process of hermeneutically piecing together so many different points of determination involving a great number of details. Yet this process is ultra-rapid although not entirely subconscious since we instantly judge every detail in gaining an instant emotional impression.

It is very common for people to experience difficulties in thinking clearly while in the state of being turned on or sexually aroused. Many persons thus think “what should I say?” or “I don’t know what to do!”. The reason is that the two brains inside the human cranium think extremely rapidly and in an automatized manner and which as largely subconscious is therefore for the most beyond what is known as so called “free will”. This is also so with the subclinical pre-state of infatuation, the psychological process of seeking an ersatz parent with whom to realize a subconscious repressed infantile sexual fantasy of reinstated infantile symbiosis.

It is clear from the fact that determination of attractiveness takes place instantly and that this is indeed an extremely advanced and effective cognitive process not only within the two human brains but also as between brains of interacting persons. Interpersonal neurological contact is clearly not possible in cases where the person deemed attractive is no longer alive. No one falls in love with a person who is no longer alive and no one falls in love with a cartoon such as Mickey Mouse. Infatuation therefore requires interpersonal neurological contact which may take place across any distance as it is perfectly possible for two persons in different countries and even different continents to fall in love with each and thus establish intense neurological contact across great distance. Physical matter seem not be an obstacle as a person in Australia and a person in Canada may freely fall in love which clearly indicates a non-linear nature of the physics of neurological contact. This means that the trajectory of communication may twist and bend in e.g. being semi-circular in not being straight and linear.

The reason reciprocal affirmation of attractiveness becomes emotionally confusing is not only its ulta-rapid character but that it is subconsciously reciprocal as involving subconscious communication not only between the two brains with their typically conflicting agendas but also between the brains of different persons indeed. There are no less than eight sentient agencies of cognition involved when two persons are turned on by each other. How is that? Each person has two brains, meaning two conscious states as well as two subconscious states and when two person meet who are attracted towards each other does this typically create a substantial amount of confusion as indeed involving at least eight sentient agencies of cognition. In cases where this general state of things have become conscious rather subconscious is this known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

Psychological/psychiatric conditions typically involves a non-neurotypical relationship between the conscious and the subconscious and so in understanding the interpersonal psychology of neurological contact need we understand both how the four sentient agencies of cognition interact within the brain and even more complexly so how eight sentient agencies of cognition interact with each in an ultrarapid manner of mutual determination of mutual compatibility.

This is the reason why romantic/sexual matching is so extremely difficult to attain in terms of the establishment of interpersonal socio-physical intimacy such as making love, building a relationship etc. considering that there are literally eight wills involved with competing agendas of order of preference.

What takes place is something intensely intelligent and complex which provides important clues as to how the four sentient agencies of cognition generally interact. Generally speaking is logic without empathy vastly overrated as can be seen in carno-phallogocentric philosophy which virtually alway ends up in logical contradiction and moral error.

Talent is the combination of intelligence and emotion in an advanced manner which may become very extremely advanced in cases of extreme talent such as Savantism, also known as Savant syndrome. What thus takes place in mutual turn-on is an accelerated process of brain functioning as involving interaction between eight sentient agencies of cognition.

This functioning of the brain is importantly activated in the little studied cognitive phenomenon known as “intuition”. In both pre-sexual encounter and intuition is there an instant advanced subconscious integration of emotion and logic. In the case of pre-sexual encounters is it typically difficult to spot the logic while intuition may provide highly accurate decisions without much forethought. Business savants such as famously Donald Trump Sr. rely on intuitive business decisions in being practically assured success by virtue of long experience of successfully intuitive decisions in the implementation of intuitive determination as being very sound business decisions indeed.

What then can we infer from all this? First does the human brain become much more effective if there is integration between emotion and logical reasoning. Second do we temporarily partially disable our brains when we start thinking about sex and this is a process lessening the impact of conflict between the eight sentient agencies of cognition. Third do we need to acquire a far better understanding of our interpersonal preferences in the physiognomy of attraction.

There are thus parallel social, biological, psychological and individual preferences in terms of instant multipoint total determination of attractiveness in a fellow person. In identifying how each anatomic/aesthetic/cognitive/semiotic point of determination is measured need we understand not only how the four sentient agencies of cognition interact but we can importantly also commence understanding the typically confusing, complex and intertwined multilateral interaction of the eight sentient agencies of cognition in pre-sexual reciprocal contact.

The establishment of such sexual contact is typically far more difficult as involving cisfemales/transfemales than as involving cismales/transmales. This is so as establishment of pre-sexual contact is typically extremely difficult to attain among lesbians, still typically very difficult to attain between males and females and the by far easiest between gays. A typically simplistic explanation of biological determinism would be that this is about understandable female caution in terms reproduction in seeking a reliable mate who will reliably provide for their joint offspring. However, transfemales are no less cautious than cisfemales and so that unproven standard hypothesis of biological determinism simply does not hold water.

The implications of this are immense as this means what in social terms could be described as “soul gender” (as clearly cognitively experienced by many transgender people) but is actually gender of the brain. Feminist genius Luce Irigaray (b. 1930) pointed out that while the male body is socially constructed as heavily sexually centered on the phallus do females have in her words “sexual organs all over the body” in an anatomic female not only having multiple sexual organs but also typically experiencing decentered bodily erogenousness as far less centered on reproductive anatomy.

Transgender females do however experience this sexual decentering across the body no less than do cisgender females. Yet transmales do not experience the same anatomic centering as do cismales even if they have surgically created phalluses, something which clearly implies that phallocentrism is a social miscondition of patriarchal social pathology with decentering being the socially neutral “natural” human state of things so to speak.

The existence of brain gender has however major implications in multidimensional gender in fact being social, biological, performative, aesthetic, psychological, ideological, semiotic etc.

Gender is hence extremely diverse as involving a vast number of gender factors as individualized to varying degrees. What then is gender? Gender is distinctive from sexuality in gender being sublimated expression of sexuality. Gender is thus the socially constructed behavioral expression of repressed sexuality.

This understanding has major implications for gender science which needs integrate with natural science without of course adopting the silly stereotypes of biological determinism as expressive of the unreason of the thoroughly unscientific and essentially ridiculous carno-phallogocentrism which still dominates virtually all fields of academia.

The different points of measurement in the instant physiognomy of attraction means that these different points are all differently gendered and that means we are all eclectic mixtures of a very large number of sexual organs as socially distributed throughout the surface of our bodies.